EP on The Bryan Hyde Show

the audio of yesterday’s appearance on the Bryan Hyde “HD Radio” show in Utah.

I’m working on the clip of last Friday’s appearance on the Bill Meyer show in Oregon.

Let me know how I did!

PS: We’ve made some progress over the past couple of days; about halfway to home (see the pie chart). To those who have pitched in, thanks! To those who have been thinking about it, I hope you’ll do so. EPautos is a kind of beta test of Libertarian economics. I can’t force anyone to support the site financially – and (key thing) would not do so even if I had the power. That’s the whole shebang. Libertarians like me advocate – and seek – a world in which people transact freely with one another; where everyone is free to come and go, as they like.

Web publishing – words and music – is already on the honor system, for all practical purposes. People can read and listen, copy/download/forward for free- in the sense that the material is available for the taking. Out here in The Woods we have a similar system for produce (vegetables and so on) and other things, too. You stop by, pick what you want and – hopefully – leave a few bucks to support the operation. It works as long as enough people do that.

Same deal here.

It doesn’t take a lot – and a lot is not even wanted. Just enough to keep the doors open, the lights on – and the “shelves” stocked with fresh Libertarian “produce.”

18 COMMENTS

Bryan: I know this gets some people’s hackles up, but I’ve heard few people explain this better than you. Tell me about some of the parallels between 1930s German society, and modern day America.

Eric: You know, they’re actually now at the point of using the same verbiage. And anybody over forty today, probably, like me, find themselves bemused if not appalled and really scared about the fact that here in the United States we refer to our country as “The Homeland.”

And we have The Department of Homeland Security which translates very well into German. Das Geschäftsstelle Die Heimatsicherheitsdienst. And we have internal checkpoints where “you’re papers please” are required.

And it’s exactly like the things we used to chuckle at in the theater when we would see the martinets in East Germany, the Soviet Union, or Nazi Germany doing these things and we’d think – ugghh! that could never happen here! Well it is happening here, it’s become absolutely routinized and common and it is going to get worse unless it is stopped in its tracks.

Bryan: How does it relate to our, I’m going to choose my words carefully here but I’m still going to offend people, our love of anyone in uniform.

Eric: Yeah, that’s of a piece with it too, and you know back when I was a conservative republican, I really admired Ronald Reagan. But I’ve come to reappraise that because it was under Reagan that a lot of this stuff began. You know, the spectacle of a teary-eyed Ollie North in his marine uniform ginning up sympathy for murdering people in El Salvador and for backing horrifically horrible people there. That’s where I see it beginning.

You know, when I was a kid, we had TV programs like MASH that kind of ridiculed the military and the martinet attitude. You might remember in the film Animal House, the character Niedermeyer, and people laughed at that and thought it was funny. Well now it’s been upended and reversed, and people reverence what they call “the troops.” I can remember when people were in the army, and they were soldiers, not troops.

Germans in World War II liked to refer to people in uniform as the troops, so there’s another parallel for you, and it’s quite ominous. There is a devotee of Ayn Rand’s, I’m just reminded of something, named Leonard Piekoff who wrote a book called The Ominous Parallels back in the 1970s and that book is very prescient.

It’s not very well known, it draws parallels between what happened in Germany in the 1930s and what has been happening in the United States. That book is now more than thirty years old, but it’s still extremely relevant. And I recommend to anyone out there who’s listening to this who’s interested in this topic to get a copy.

Bryan:We’re down to just a minute or so left in the show. Eric Peters, one final question for you – I’m convinced my kids are going to be the ones who’re oing to have to do most of the heavy lifting that lies ahead of us. Where do you recommend we help them, start focusing on the kind of independent thinking that breaks free of the cloveristic thinking?

Eric: Just by doing what we’re doing right now. We’re talking about these things, and by checking their premises, as Rand liked to say. And in conversation when somebody lets fly with a glib statist or authoritarian comment, in a nice way, without being confrontational, perhaps: ask them exactly what they mean by that.

Define your terms. And just try to be a thoughtful person, rather than a reflexive authoritarian person who spouts, “there ought to be a law” and so on. And just try to do the decent thing, and deal with people on a non-violent and cooperative and voluntary basis, rather than trying to force everybody around.

Russian activists approach smokers in the street and make them extinguish their cigarettes

The Russian government recently passed a tobacco control law that bans smokers from almost all public places. The problem is our Russian friends are slow to abide. Watch how the law is enforced by a public activist group: “Lion Versus.”

– – And Mr. Website owner, or Ms. Site Administrator, can you remove those flashing and tracking ads. They’re blinding me and damaging my retinas and making my sinuses hurt. Stop aggressing against me. Some of us are epileptic or pre-epileptic you know. You’re violating my right to defend my health. And about your scripts. My computer has a right to not be infected by your contagious scripts. Aaaachooo. I would think a proponent of the NAP would provide a more hygienic discussion space and keep a cyber-condom on his domain and be more sensitive to my afflictions.

I guess this is what happens when you trade all your land for 12 Federal Reserve Trinket shops against your will. Should’ve have kept a few more Native Americans around to warn us about the Fork in the Tongue.

Eric: Sure, and one of the interesting things about that, is they seem incapable of applying the concept generally. I know Utah has its own unique issues with regard to alcohol. But in other states, alcohol generally is legal. Whereas marijuana and so on are not. And this cognitive dissonance, this inability to recognize that, well let’s see, I’ve got a refrigerator full of beer. And I’ve got some wine in my rack. I enjoy those things.

And I don’t feel that I should be thrown in prison or have to worry about that I might be thrown in prison for possessing those things. And yet, I’m advocating throwing people in cages merely for possessing cannabis. It seems obviously illogical to me. Obviously immoral to me, and yet most people don’t seem to connect that.

Bryan: So how does one go about getting past that cognitive dissonance and actually seeing the bigger picture?

Eric: Well, by thinking! That’s the bottom line. You can really go down the rabbit hole on this, but several writers have suggested, and I’m inclined to believe them, that the government schools, that’s what I call public schools are designed specifically to thwart the development of people’s conceptual faculties.

Their ability to think in terms of principles and apply those thing to particulars. And as a result of that, most people are very subjectivist and particularist when it comes to any given issue. They can’t see the proverbial forest for the trees. It’s a real problem. And you just have to keep pointing things out to them, and some people are never going to see it, but you have to hope some will. I did. And I know that there are a lot of other people who have. We may never be in a majority, but if we can ever get to a critical mass, we might get something done.

Bryan: Are there any particular reading sources that you would recommend that would help people launch that thinking?

Eric: Well, you can go historically, you can read Tom Paine, his prose, even 200-something years later is very lucid. Very articulate about the rights of man. Jefferson of course had a lot of great things to say. In a conversational kind of way, I very much enjoy H L Mencken who I’ve already mentioned twice. It seems I’m plugging the guy relentlessly, even though he’s been dead for forty years.

I’m a big fan of Bob Heinlein’s. He’s known as a science fiction writer, but a lot of his work really gets into these philosophical issues and he’s a very libertarian writer. One of his most libertarian novels is his: The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress. Highly recommend it. Also Starship Troopers which most people are not aware of. They’re aware of the movie, not the book. The movie is kind of cartoonish. The book is not.

Bryan: Okay, we’ve gotta take a break here. Coming up in a few moments, when we come back, we’ll continue our conversation with Eric Peters. Again you can check out his website at EricPetersAutos.com. We’ll also open up the lines for your conversation at 844-805-TALK. That’s 844-805-8255 we will continue on the HD Radio Show.

[Intermission promo and music until 10:50 mark.]

Bryan: Good afternoon and welcome to the HD Radio Show, I have Eric Peters on line with me. And he is one of the clearest voices of freedom. If you have been listening, you understand, this guy knows how to break it down to the nuts and bolts that anybody can easily understand. We have Ken standing by. Ken go ahead, you’re on the air.

Ken [caller]: We need to back up a little on the subject of the program, but you had talked about the clovers being one of the instances of being the left lane hogs. That group is usually wearing uniforms, and they’re in law enforcement. And they’re honestly, honestly, honestly, I see that every day.

Eric: Laughs. He’s absolutely correct. He’s correct, and on the opposite end of the spectrum too, you’ll find these guys blowing past you at speeds at which you’d be considered reckless, if you or I did them.

Ken [caller]: Absolutely. And maybe they can be clover hogs then.

Eric: And, why not. they don’t have to worry about having people point guns at them. They get to do it with impunity.

Bryan: Ken, thank you so much for the call. Eric one of the biggest, most egregious examples of over-reach that I can think of is the one called asset forfeiture. And I know you’ve recently written on this. Give us your take on the idea of taking property from people, minus due process

Eric: Well, I mean, could it possibly be any more tyrannical than that? One of the most bedrock principles of western jurisprudence of free societies, is that it’s necessary to establish guilt before punishment. That you’ve actually done something before you suffer consequences And this absolutely reverses that. All it takes is the assertion that a crime has been committed, and frankly, not even that.

In the piece that you’re referencing that I just posted on the site today, I try to make people aware of the fact that merely possessing for example “a large sum of cash” amount not defined, is sufficient warrant for a cop to seize that money, and then it is up to you to establish that money was not derived from some unlawful purpose such as drug trafficking, or what have you. It’s absolutely outrageous and people do not realize that this is a common practice in pretty much every state of the land.

Bryan: Well it seems like an abstract thing until it happens to them, or to somebody that they know. And then suddenly it’s like: really, they can do that. But I think a lot of people don’t believe that sounds like armed robbery except for the fact it’s a representative of the state that’s doing it.

Eric: Well, it is armed robbery, and the frightening thing is, if you have a historical perspective, which I do, is that these things do not start out en masse. they start out against what I call pariah people, marginalized people. And then it is expanded, the classic example of course, what happened in Germany during World War II. The holocaust did not begin by the rounding up of large numbers of Jews. What happened is they began to dabble their toe in the water by killing off people they considered undesirables such as people with psychiatric problems and serious health problems under something they called the T4 program.

And the German authorities waited to see if there was any big reaction to that. And when there wasn’t, they began to expand it. As I like to say often in my columns: principles become precedent. If something’s not challenged, it becomes established. And it sets the groundwork for bigger things of a piece to come down the road.

BrentP, I think the world of you and care deeply about your experience. Only you know what you are experiencing and what such sensations mean. I believe both reason and feelings are important.

I care about all five of your neural cortices and your amygdala in equal measures.

These issues I’ve attempt to bring up, perhaps their not even welcome here. Perhaps this is a place to discuss cars and bikes and keep everything else to ourselves. Maybe I’m a drama queen slapfighter looking for a throwdown in the wrong venue. If so, my bad.

Sex differences in amygdala:
The amygdala is one of the best understood brain regions with regard to differences between the sexes. Larger male than female amygdalae have been demonstrated in children ages 7–11, in adult humans, and in adult rats.

In addition to size, other differences between men and women exist with regards to the amygdala. Subjects’ amygdala activation was observed when watching a horror film. The results of the study showed a different lateralization of the amygdala in men and women. Enhanced memory for the film was related to enhanced activity of the left, but not the right, amygdala in women, whereas it was related to enhanced activity of the right, but not the left, amygdala in men. One study found evidence that on average, women tend to retain stronger memories for emotional events than men.

The right amygdala is also linked with taking action as well as being linked to negative emotions, which may help explain why males tend to respond to emotionally stressful stimuli physically. The left amygdala allows for the recall of details, but it also results in more thought rather than action in response to emotionally stressful stimuli, which may explain the absence of physical response in women.

The ideal leader has changed from someone who is a strong moral male to a weak and submissive female personality. They portray strong men as ignorant brutish bullies, while the ‘educated’ and ‘enlightened’ male is shown as someone who is sensitive and nurturing.

– In my case, I’ve never killed an animal. I’ve only had a few bloody noses. Never had a broken bone. What has been anyone else’s experience?

Bryan: Okay, you’ve given some great examples over the years of what a clover is. Of how to recognize the clover. Do you mind if we use some automotive examples. When you encounter a clover on the road, what are you likely to encounter?

Eric: Well, the most stereotypical behavior of the clover is the left lane hog. You’re driving down the road and there’ll be a person in front of you in the left lane which most people used to recognize as the fast lane, or the passing lane.

And in the past, people would look into the rear view mirror and see – gee – there’s a person coming up behind me and he’s moving faster than I am, I’ll ease over to the right and let them by. The defining attribute of the clover in the left hand lane, is he absolutely will not move. Even if he looks in the rear view mirror, he seems to derive some sick pleasure out of forcing everyone else to drive his speed.

If you try to pass the guy, often times he’ll pick up speed just to prevent you from passing. Or close the gap between you and the car in the other lane. They’re control freaks. That’s the defining characteristic of the clover.

Bryan: Okay, now I have to admit, there was a period of time in my life where I would never believe there is a clover inside of me, but a very good friend of mine. He was probably the most die-hard libertarian I’ve ever known, pointed it out to me on occasion. Gently always, but he would say – Bryan, I see a little of that tyrant showing through there – and I reluctantly had to admit, yes, in fact, there was a little inner tyrant. And I suspect that’s probably true for most of us. How do we go about recognizing when that little tyrant is demanding that its will be observed?

Eric: Well, the way I do it. My standard is, the libertarian standard of harm caused. So if I notice that a person is doing something that I might personally not do myself. Or even that I might disapprove of, I ask myself is what that person is doing causing harm to anybody? And if it’s not, as much as I might disagree with their personal choice, I have come to accept that people have a right pursue happiness as they see it. And provided they’re not causing anybody harm in the process, it’s my obligation to leave them be and to expect the same from them in return.

Bryan: Okay, and for those just joining us, we’re talking with Eric Peters from EricPetersAutos.com. Eric, I’m sure there was a process at some point in your life where you turned a corner and whether it was the non-aggression principle, or whatever, this just made sense. What’s the path that you took, that you became an enlightened thinker on freedom?

Eric: You know, I have to give credit where it’s due. For a long time I was what they call a conservative, or a republican conservative and over the years I read various people including Mencken. And also science fiction writers such as Bob Heinlein who I highly recommend if you’re not familiar with.

And of course, some of the other greats: Von Mises and so on of the libertarian economic school. And what they wrote made sense. And I really liked the way that it very clearly cleaved what was right, from what was wrong. And there’s not a whole lot of grey area. It simply states that it’s wrong to initiate force. And you can scale that. You can apply that to almost anything in life. Any circumstance in life you might come across.

It’s legitimate to defend yourself against violent assault or coercion, but it’s not right ever to use violence first. To aggress against other people, and I may be simple-minded, but that principle appealed to me. And I’ve tried to apply that principle in my life.

Bryan: Well, what it applies to, for instance, is laws. Here in Utah, we just had a very contentious debate over medical cannabis being made available to patience who have terminal illnesses or other life-threatening illnesses. And predictably, it was the clovers within our state legislature who just could not bear the thought might misuse or otherwise take medicinal cannabis and derive some kind of pleasure. And therefore, knowing best, the measure failed by one single vote.

No one need justify themselves to another. You hate smoking. Maybe even want to peacefully eradicate it from the face of the Earth the way the UN does. Well, have at it. We’ll put aside how marijuana comes into play. Maybe only non-smoking means of drug delivery. So much is already prohibited, what’s one more corpse on the pyre at this point.

But as a mitigation. Consider gambling. Total unrestricted gambling without qualification. Offer bets and to take the house action on things yourself. Be the principle here. Not an agent. Not a spectator. Not a commenter on the the spectators, agents, and principles. Not a pundit on the doings of others.

But really facilitate gambling. Provide a free market in gambing. Find your local bookies. Check the odds and launch your own march madness event. Right freakin now, time is incredibly short already, just do something for freedom, please.

If everywhere in the world suddenly allowed unrestricted gambling. What would that entail. All women love gambling that I’ve known. You won’t be able to hide your intolerance beneath their skirt this time.

Every payday, find somebody and flip a coin. The winner gets both paychecks. Go cash them together and make a new friend. Be gracious in your loss. Now we’re cooking with the gas of freedom, I’d wager.

Better than random gambling. Look for chances to gamble against your own prowess.

Race one of your friends on a two mile course. The winner gets the other guys car. Or TV. Computer. The winner has the other guy pay all his utilities for a month. The winner has the other guy pay his mortgage or car payment.

This is just scratching the circle. But you have to admit it’s rather easy to negate the chains of big brother. Just use your imagination for a minute. Just take a chance in life.

Just learn to love gambling. Be a market mafia don in the gambling space. You’ll be surprised how much you can earn, if you’re as smart as you think you are. But keep it about freedom, if you can. Someone is in despair. Offer them the possibility of redemption through an interpersonal lottery.

Who’s going to win the STP in Martinsville on Sunday 3/29. Find some libertarian car guys somewhere, and get them all to make a wager. Keep a cut for yourself as the house.

Every minute you spend gambling, is a minute you begin to repair the fabric of spacetime that’s been ripped to shreds by those who need us to run in their rat mazes. And power their social experiments by running in their hamster wheels.

Don’t you dare go out that way. Take a chance on living. Take a chance on you. Take a chance on me. Take a chance on chance.

Finally had time to listen to the whole interview. I think you did great. It of course is good that your host was basically on your side (and a fan to boot), and it was a conservation rather then an interview. It’s good to be able to get the word out without having to “defend” yourself over stupid “gotta” questions. Most people get knocked off topic by “journalists” easily and never recover. If they were asking good questions or even hard ones, it would be one thing, but those questions are never asked these days.

Maybe someday it will be interesting to see you on a show that isn’t friendly (or even a debate). Though it’s likely it won’t ever happen, not because you wouldn’t want too.

I think humor is a great way of getting the message across too. Too many use anger, and its an easy trap to fall into, because we are angry. Anger is used against us by those against freedoms because its EASY to label someone that is angry all the time as a crackpot. Anger also knocks people away from rational conversation as well, as most of politics today is hardly rational.

You pointed out that “clover” is a family friendly word, you can say the word in front of everyone. Its a good point. So many people don’t want to deal with politics because it is so dirty. But if we can point out the ridiculous nature of most of today’s politics with humorous terms like clover its something people can identify with easily.

I don’t think this sort of Vichy Libertarianism is going to cut it, what about you?

[copied from Ron Paul forum. my comments are all within these brackets from now on.]

Philosophy Discussion: Libertarian view on public nudity?
This is more of a practice in philosophy.

Firstly, I must say that I am a staunch libertarian. Understand, I am not an anarcho-capitalist, more of a minarchist, night-watchman state type-libertarian.

[false. if you were staunch, you’d make an effort to act in a liberty loving manner today, despite the unease it caused you. how hard is it to take your clothes off for a few moments when it’s everybody’s future at stake.

when we all face this lemming-like impending dystopia where humans devolve into data processing drones like on the TV series Fringe. Observers would also have no appreciation of the necessity of spontaneous nudity. Remember when coins had nudity. Won’t you stave off the coming hive mindedness now, while you still can.]

I am also *not* a nudist. I wouldn’t want to prance around naked, nor would I want to see people prance around naked.

[maybe some guys don’t like guns. they’re queasy around firearms. but if they’re really libertarians, they’ll keep them anyway. First principles. Having the ability to act is of primary importance. ]

As a libertarian, though – and thinking in terms of how a libertarian society could/would work – I don’t think it should be banned. I can’t think of any reason as to why one’s civil liberties should be infringed upon that would make it unlawful for one to walk around in a *public place* in nothing but their birthday suit. Obviously owners of any private property could prohibit this if they wanted (or even encourage it, lol) – but I’m talking about *public property* in particular.

[well that’s useless. instead of acting to enlarge the realm of what is possible. you wimper about some future readiness to maybe just maybe not make a peep should a miracle occur and a few men remember just what being human really used to mean.]

The best solution would be to privatize as much as possible… but then in a non-anarcho-capitalist environment – there would STILL be public areas. [that is why libertarians are seen as useful idiots. they’re just there to split the conservative laissez faire bloc when needed. wily leftists know libertarians are all aspies with no soul and little testosterone and vigor. that’s why anarchists reject you also, because you don’t value freedom as an absolute. you’re willing to remain sheep and be sheared, so long as you’re given a little free roaming time on some kind of pleasant pasture.]

My view generally would rest on no – it shouldn’t be banned. But then you kind of end up on a slippery slope… so why stop there? What’s to stop two-consenting adults from having gay or straight sex in public? Public nudity is one thing – but damn, I *REALLY* wouldn’t want to see two people having sex on public property, and I *especially* wouldn’t want to see gay sex in public (I am pro-gay rights btw, but I don’t want to see it, lol). Obviously I and others would just avoid it… but what about when (for whatever reason) I need to go to a public place?

[god fukking forbid anyone should have sex at a low cost and in a convenient matter. that’s why we need a 18 trillion dollar economy. because the simple cost of basic needs like sex is astronomically inflated. sure, that keeps the PTB’s treadmill fully stocked with willing proles running until exhaustion. what is the utility of mere libertarians again, I forget.

Wait until they program you to be offended by watching a prole eat or breathe. That’s in the works. Especially an obese or asthmatic prole. Useful libertarian shills. Everything you say is suspect…]

And to those who say it *should* be banned, well firstly that doesn’t sound very libertarian – now does it? That would involve government force, by gunpoint if necessary, infringing on people’s civil liberties in order to enforce the ban. Regardless, though, what’s the justification for banning it? Because it’s sexual and ‘needs to be private’, or because it causes people to feel uncomfortable or have sexual feelings? That’s very subjective and you’re on yet *another* slippery slope… by that logic then, any ads showing an attractive woman, for example – should be banned… or any even slightly sexual dress should be banned – and every one would have to wear burqas…

[I heard this all in a lispy fag voice. Libertarians apparently are uptight queers of the worst sort. If you can’t take a strong forceful philosophical stand on this. If you can’t act and do this, you’re nothing. Give it up already. You’re already human cattle and beasts who’ve been taught a language.]

… see what I’m getting at? So I’m trying to wrap my mind around these slippery slopes… and it seems like you’d have to take the black & white approach of either allow people to go all the way with it, or to completely ban it all and move to an authoritarian/totalitarian state… I would rather deal with the inconveniences of too much freedom than too little of it, at that point.

[you’re beyond pathetic. maybe you should just kill yourself. don’t you recognize your own mind and body being manipulated on a day to day basis. I see what happens to my own. I get more and more angry. More and more out of control. You’re all insane.

How J J Abrams and one TV show get it all so right? You’re all observers. As Observers you feel superior to Loyalists, but you’re blind to your own life hating natural world hating artificiality. I am at peace and my range is in abeyance. I can just watch another episode of Fringe and calm myself.

The only thing is, time travel isn’t really a thing. It’s a metaphor for how things we think have disappeared are still sublimated with in us. All that was somewhere still is. All that might be, is already somewhere now, but hidden. The world that we grew up in does die under the authoritarian dictatorship of the Observers with their Loyalist soldiers making it possible.

Only Observers aren’t from a future doomsday Earth of 2609. Observers are all right here. Talking smack about the clover Loyalists and statist Loyalists, who will someday serve future libertarians, when they help destroy the free world, and help make an eternal prison future for everyone. A future where no one makes it off this planet And humanity stays here to die, its promise unfulfilled. Feed the fake libertarians fish heads. Feed them good and hard.]

Someone is smoking around me, and due to the nature of the situation I cannot move away from them. I have to inhale their 2nd hand smoke. This is harming me. Am I justified under the NAP to use force to defend my health?

(I would never, obviously. Just wondering for the sake of discussion. Sorry if this has been covered before.)

What if you saw some kids shooting heroin together. What if you saw some kids engaging in sexual touching, and they weren’t be all that discrete about it.

What if some guy’s got his hand in his pants a few hundred feet away. Can you look away. What if everyone lived in a glass house. And you could seem them all doing whatever it is they do in private. And what you do in private.

Do you grasp that you are a mental cripple. That you don’t enjoy a high standard of living. But rather need an advanced economy and mass produced technology to live.

Cars aren’t a luxury for you. They’re more like wheel chairs. You need them. You couldn’t stand a world where everything you now drive to is within walking distance. Because you’re a miserable cripple who hates unscheduled and uncontrolled humanity.

What if some old rich guy is providing cocaine to some 15 year old girl. That isn’t going to harm you. You see her there willingly consenting. Look he just gave her a few hundred dollar bills, because its somehow transmuted into an alternate universe where everyone is free, and your miserable doctrines about every single action and occurence don’t count for jack squat.

A world where free men live well. And haters of vice, sloth, and resource squander instead live down by the river in vans and have been thrice divorced for their intolerance.

I am Winston Smith. I am making a go of it amid the proles. What about you. Being a hermit is fine, but can you think outside of yourself and understand those who choose otherwise. Can you love a filthy vile worthless in your eyes prole, so long as they are free and leave their brothers be.

Winston saw himself standing there in the dim lamplight, with the smell of bugs and cheap scent in his nostrils, and in his heart a feeling of defeat and resentment which even at that moment was mixed up with the thought of Katharine’s white body, frozen for ever by the hypnotic power of the Party.

Why did it always have to be like this? Why could he not have a woman of his own instead of these filthy scuffles at intervals of years?

But a real love affair was an almost unthinkable event. The women of the Party were all alike. Chastity was as deep ingrained in them as Party loyalty. By careful early conditioning, by games and cold water, by the rubbish that was dinned into them at school and in the Spies and the Youth League, by lectures, parades, songs, slogans, and martial music, the natural feeling had been driven out of them.

His reason told him that there must be exceptions, but his heart did not believe it. They were all impregnable, as the Party intended that they should be. And what he wanted, more even than to be loved, was to break down that wall of virtue, even if it were only once in his whole life.

The sexual act, successfully performed, was rebellion. Desire was thoughtcrime. Even to have awakened Katharine, if he could have achieved it, would have been like a seduction, although she was his wife.

But the rest of the story had got to be written down. He wrote, he turned up the lamp. When I saw her in the light After the darkness the feeble light of the paraffin lamp had seemed very bright. For the first time he could see the woman properly. He had taken a step towards her and then halted, full of lust and terror. He was painfully conscious of the risk he had taken in coming here. It was perfectly possible that the patrols would catch him on the way out: for that matter they might be waiting outside the door at this moment.

If he went away without even doing what he had come here to do — !

It had got to be written down, it had got to be confessed. What he had suddenly seen in the lamplight was that the woman was old. The paint was plastered so thick on her face that it looked as though it might crack like a cardboard mask. There were streaks of white in her hair; but the truly dreadful detail was that her mouth had fallen a little open, revealing nothing except a cavernous blackness. She had no teeth at all.

He wrote hurriedly, in scrabbling handwriting:
When I saw her in the light she was quite an old woman, fifty years old at least. But I went ahead and did it just the same.

He pressed his fingers against his eyelids again. He had written it own at last, but it made no difference. The therapy had not worked. The urge to shout filthy words at the top of his voice was as strong as ever.

I considered many smokers to be committing an aggression with their smoke. This persists even at outdoor events today. I would find myself a nice smoke free area and then some smoker who couldn’t stand the smoke of other smokers would have to come over and light up next to me.

The smoke does harm me since it activates my allergies most of the year. But I consider the ‘prove it causes harm’ to be an outgrowth of the decision against property rights with regards to industrial pollution. The decision that forced the little guy to prove what the giant company was spewing on to his land to be harmful. Which of course once that happened instead of restoring property rights we got a system of government granted pollution for the special people up to a certain amount.

However, if a private property owner wants smoking who am I to say he can’t? Won’t get my business, but that’s his choice.

If you cared about liberty, why not encourage others to be nude at a public event. And even do so yourself.

Tell me how the nudity of other affects your health. Does naked flesh emit some kind of toxic rays. Perhaps their micro-organisms can more easily prey upon you, now that the mass-produced textile magic clothe isn’t there as a barrier?

What if some people want to have sex at this event. Could you tolerate this occurring. Be honest. How does strangers having sex negatively affect your health and well being.

The disassociate identity disordered individual is truly a marvel. All Americans are DID in one way or another. Libertarian DID victims will swear they love liberty. And espouse all matter of doctrines. Yet the truth is, they hate liberty far more than any ghetto denizen.

I live among the poorest and least moral among us. They don’t have the energy or capability to stop behaviors they dislike. So they tolerate freedom by default.

They live in a liberty far beyond anything you are comfortable with and could tolerate. I’ll take a section 8 rap music prole over any of you tight-assed libertarians any day.

These ghetto proles do lower everyone’s standard of living its true. But what is more important. Freedom or creature comforts. I suspect most libertarians are about remaining statist creatures as a reward for not rocking the national boat to violently so as to upset the welfare warfare treadmill.

I realize I was unfair to you earlier, by your reckoning. I fear that this will be another instance. But I’m going to risk posting this. After seeing this written, there will be changes I would make. But I’d rather get these points across even if its not “fair” and not done in a gentlemanly live and let live fashion.

I value yours and my freedom higher than I do your right to be left alone. And to be treated in the way its not so difficult to treat you. Yes you’ve earned that status. But I’m crossing the line in an attempt to really reach you, now while you’re still partially human and not an irredeemable mandroid in a plastic bubble who can only live on a PTB provided sterile petri dish facsimile of Earth, and not the mud and blood Earth at it really is without their overseeing.

Tor,
May you have someone with a very loud bass stereo in his car park outside your residence at 3am shaking your internal organs. Then you can tell me if that’s an aggression or not. Of course as I learned, playing Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath just as loud and annoyingly isn’t acceptable.

The funny thing is if I were to start burning used motor oil next to these smokers they wouldn’t like that very much. Maybe I enjoy the smell of burning motor oil and thus they should be obligated to put up with it, right? But what would actually happen is they would call a cop.

I tire of libertarians who have decided based on nothing more than their personal opinions what constitutes an aggression. Because cigarette smoke doesn’t bother them and commonplace it’s just fine. I take it upon myself to separate from the smokers but that isn’t good enough. Not enough for you. But if I were to take a different but equally annoying action then suddenly I am the aggressor. It’s not objective by any means.

One thing I’ve learned in life is that people don’t like their own behaviors mirrored back at them. They want to be offensive and then have the other person ‘ask’ them to stop. It’s a stupid little power play. More than once I’ve responded in kind to people who were being irritating and what do they do? They go to authority, fully admit what they were doing and then say I was in the wrong to respond by annoying them.

The last instance of note when I was living in an apartment building. Upstairs neighbor was playing music loud. So I started doing like Steve in the great escape with a rubber ball on my ceiling. Next day I get a letter from the management company. Upstairs neighbor complained that I didn’t go up and ask him to stop playing music so loud.

hell is other people, so the existentialist say. perhaps I am a hell to some.

it’s all well and good for those who produce for themselves but do their worst not to pay into the kitty, to tell those who feed the kitty what should be done.

When you’re in the class that makes things so for this shared culture we’re forced to be in. It doesn’t surprise me that you want to have your say since it’s your stolen dime.

I can only urge you not to give in to that all too understandable temptation. For that is the road to serfdom, I believe. What has been stolen from you, is a sunk cost.

The more you struggle against these thieves the more you lose. You’re caught in a Chinese finger trap. Even if you made the cookies yourself from scratch.

Don’t succumb and reach back into the cookie jar they larcenized from your kitchen not so long ago. Write it off. Let it go.

I need freedom, not quiet. I live a messy disgusting icky sticky life. Not skulk about a self-righteous sterile library of proverbs. But I have no quarrel with any who do so. Good for them.

I’m just some side kick snowman, don’t mind me. I speak the deep truth but I’m only frozen water, and not real. I have a happy snow family and snow children and its a nice life that I’m used to. But we’re all only a ghetto prole cartoon show, in the end.

I’m just a denizen of a dirty snowball Ceres microplanet anarchy world. A rolling stonian. I don’t inhabit a planet with the laws of gravity and planetary ambition.

Radio Interview – Bryan Hyde is on the air and interviewing libertarian car guy Eric Peters for the HD Radio Show.

Bryan: Good afternoon and welcome to the HD Radio Show. Very happy to have Eric Peters joining me by telephone this afternoon. Eric, nice to make your acquaintance.

Eric: Glad to be here. Thank you for having me.

Bryan: I have been a long time fan of people who can express the principles of freedom and promote the cause of freedom clearly, and without any equivocation, without having to sugarcoat it. And I would have to say that you are one my favorite writers on that subject.

But there’s a lot more that you do, and if you don’t mind, could you just brag about yourself for a bit. And tell me who you are, and what you do.

Eric: Oh God, that is awkward.

Bryan: Laughs.

Eric: I began as an automotive journalist focusing on cars and motorcycles, and that kinda evolved over time into talking about these pesky libertarian issues of freedom.

They kind of flow naturally, if you start to think about it, from driving and from owning a car. After all, cars were about freedom, they were about individuality. You went out and got your first car as a teenager and the open road was yours. You could adventure, you could go beyond your own community and see the world.

You could express yourself by your car. You could work on your car, customize it. And from that derived America’s love affair with the car. Which, is now dying, because the car is becoming a burden, and a means for the government and others to control your life and filch money out of your pocket.

Bryan: OK, I think a lot of people are going to recognize that and say, okay that rings true. Now what a lot of people won’t recognize is the unwitting part that we play in that smothering embrace of government that just seems to be squeezing us tighter every day.

And to that end, you introduced me to a term that I in turn would like you to introduce to our listeners, and that term is “clover.” What can you tell us about the “clover.” Who it is.

Eric: Well first, the good thing about the “clover” is it’s family friendly. There are lots of other terms that you can use for this personality type, this habit of mind, and I have to give credit where credit is due.

“Clover” is actually a person. At least I suspect it’s a person, it could be a bot. It’s somebody who continuously visits my website – EPautos.com – and posts comments that are in opposition to articles that I’ve written.

Its comments always take an authoritarian collectivist bent. And those are the defining characteristics of a clover. H L Mencken called these people “uplifters.” And people in the south where I live call them Yankees. But the common denominator is: they can’t leave other people alone. They believe in forcing other people to live in the way they believe people ought to live.

They do not believe in individualism. They believe in groups and collectives. And they always seem to appoint themselves as the arbiter of these groups. Transmuting the will of the group. That will then being imposed on people, basically at gunpoint. That’s the essence of what a clover is.

POPULAR CATEGORY

Eric started out writing about cars for mainstream media outlets such as The Washington Times, Detroit News and Free Press, Investors Business Daily, The American Spectator, National Review, The Chicago Tribune and Wall Street Journal.